So when Paul says for instance, in Corinthians,
“I urge you, brothers and sisters, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree in what you say,
and that there be no divisions among you,
but that you be united in the same mind and in the same purpose.”
he was not speaking to them to be united in faith and beliefs?
And if he were, does that not imply that there is a central and universal truth to which he wished all would adhere?
Church is always used singularly, for the church was to be as one. One mind, one faith, one baptism. Just as Jesus prayed for it to be.
Church often means congregation, if translated correctly.
Let’s look at Corinthians:
Who is the letter written to?
” 2To the church of God that is in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints together with all those who in every place call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, both their Lord and ours:” - 1 Cor 1
So it is to the local congregation, and to all believers.
And one of its central themes is for unity in the congregation at Corinth:
“11For it has been reported to me by Chloe’s people that there is quarreling among you, my brothers. 12What I mean is that each one of you says, “I follow Paul,” or “I follow Apollos,” or “I follow Cephas,” or “I follow Christ.” 13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?”
Notice people were following individuals. And what does Paul say?
“17For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with words of eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power. 18For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19For it is written...”
Golly, he calls for unity. But notice what he doesn’t do: He never tries to unify the congregation or the believers by referring to Peter.
According to Catholic theology, Peter was the Vicar of Christ and the earthly head of the Church, so in a call to unity, Paul SHOULD have mentioned Peter. Instead, what happens?
19For it is written,
“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise,
and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart.”
as it is written, “Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord.”
But, as it is written,
“What no eye has seen, nor ear heard,
nor the heart of man imagined,
what God has prepared for those who love him”—
9For it is written in the Law of Moses, “You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain.”
Paul relies on two authorities when dealing with their divisions: scripture, and his authority as an Apostle (which is why we use his writings as scripture).
Not once does he appeal to Peter, or to Rome.
Church is always used singularly, for the church was to be as one. One mind, one faith, one baptism. Just as Jesus prayed for it to be.
And again, it does not necessarily follow that the Roman Catholic church IS that church.
They claim that they are, but that is spurious indeed.
For one thing, the RCC simply cannot trace its roots back to Peter as certainly as they would like everyone to believe. There's too much unknown of the first 300 years of church history.
The other thing is, due to the behavior and practices for most of its history, the Catholic church has basically disqualified itself from being able to claim that it alone is the true church of God on earth.
While I know most Catholics then turn around and argue that no one is perfect and God uses sinful men, yada, yada, yada, we are not talking occasional mistakes, errors in judgment, or falling into sin on occasion, but rather a history replete with immorality and corruption of the worst kind. Deliberate, pre-mediated sin is NOT excusable in any one who desires the office of elder or deacon.
No matter what office or position they held, sexual immorality disqualifies them from holding office by Scriptural command.
Titus 1:5-16 This is why I left you in Crete, so that you might put what remained into order, and appoint elders in every town as I directed you— if anyone is above reproach, the husband of one wife, and his children are believers and not open to the charge of debauchery or insubordination. For an overseer, as God’s steward, must be above reproach. He must not be arrogant or quick-tempered or a drunkard or violent or greedy for gain, but hospitable, a lover of good, self-controlled, upright, holy, and disciplined. He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it.
For there are many who are insubordinate, empty talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision party. They must be silenced, since they are upsetting whole families by teaching for shameful gain what they ought not to teach. One of the Cretans, a prophet of their own, said, "Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons." This testimony is true. Therefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith, not devoting themselves to Jewish myths and the commands of people who turn away from the truth. To the pure, all things are pure, but to the defiled and unbelieving, nothing is pure; but both their minds and their consciences are defiled. They profess to know God, but they deny him by their works. They are detestable, disobedient, unfit for any good work.
1 Timothy 3:1-13 The saying is trustworthy: If anyone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task. Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God’s church? 6He must not be a recent convert, or he may become puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil. Moreover, he must be well thought of by outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace, into a snare of the devil.
Deacons likewise must be dignified, not double-tongued, not addicted to much wine, not greedy for dishonest gain. They must hold the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience. And let them also be tested first; then let them serve as deacons if they prove themselves blameless. Their wives likewise must be dignified, not slanderers, but sober-minded, faithful in all things. Let deacons each be the husband of one wife, managing their children and their own households well. For those who serve well as deacons gain a good standing for themselves and also great confidence in the faith that is in Christ Jesus.
The clergy of the Catholic church does NOT meet the qualifications set forth here by Paul and for most of its history hasn't. Certainly not men like these ten worst popes.
These men are NOT part of the true church on earth. If the Catholic church owns them, then the Catholic church can no longer claim that title either.
“Church is always used singularly”
Actually it is not, but “churches” occurs 36 times in the N.T.
As for unity, comprehensive doctrinal unity was always a goal not realized, and the much invoked “unanimous consent of the fathers” Rome claims for her official definitions is a myth. (http://www.equip.org/PDF/DC170-3.pdf)
But the church could be of one heart and and mind in dedication, love and faith. And the basic unity of the Spirit (Eph. 4:3) is a supernatural phenomenon, the Jesus being them and they in Him, which corresponds to Jn. 17:21, resulting from being born again, and transcends churches and is greater than disagreements, thank God.
And what no church is ever told to do is to submit to Peter as its supreme head, (though he was the leader among brethren and exercised a general pastoral function) which we would expect if they were like Rome became, nor was there any manifest provision made for a successor for him.
RC Patrologist Boniface Ramsey,
“Sometimes, then, the Fathers speak and write in a way that would eventually be seen as unorthodox. But this is not the only difficulty with respect to the criterion of orthodoxy. The other great one is that we look in vain in many of the Fathers for references to things that many Christians might believe in today. We do not find, for instance, some teachings on Mary or the papacy that were developed in medieval and modern times.’ —Boniface Ramsey, Beginning to Read the Fathers (London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1986), p. 6.
RC theologian Yves Congar,
“In regard to individual texts of Scripture total patristic consensus is rare...it does sometimes happen that some Fathers understood a passage in a way which does not agree with later Church teaching. One example: the interpretation of Peter’s confession in Matthew 16:16-18. Except at Rome, this passage was not applied by the Fathers to the papal primacy; they worked out an exegesis at the level of their own ecclesiological thought, more anthropological and spiritual than juridical.” — Yves Congar, Tradition and Traditions (New York: Macmillan Company, 1966), pp. 397-400.
Catholic historian and political conservatives Paul Johnson in his 1976 work “History of Christianity” states:
“By the third century, lists of bishops, each of whom had consecrated his successor, and which went back to the original founding of the see by one or the other of the apostles, had been collected or manufactured by most of the great cities of the empire and were reproduced by Eusebius…”– “A History of Christianity,” pgs 53 ff.)
Roger Collins (http://www.shc.ed.ac.uk/staff/hon_fellows/rcollins) adds,
“There was … no individual, committee or council of leaders within the Christian movement that could pronounce on which beliefs and practices were acceptable and which were not. This was particularly true of Rome with its numerous small groups of believers. Different Christian teachers and organizers of house-churches offered a variety of interpretations of the faith and attracted particular followings, rather in the way that modern denominations provide choice for worshipers looking for practices that particularly appeal to them on emotional, intellectual, aesthetic or other grounds (15-16).
American Roman Catholic priest and Biblical scholar Raymond Brown, “The claims of various sees to descend from particular members of the Twelve are highly dubious. It is interesting that the most serious of these is the claim of the bishops of Rome to descend from Peter, the one member of the Twelve who was almost a missionary apostle in the Pauline sense – a confirmation of our contention that whatever succession there was from apostleship to episcopate, it was primarily in reference to the Puauline tyupe of apostleship, not that of the Twelve.” (“Priest and Bishop, Biblical Reflections,” Nihil Obstat, Imprimatur, 1970, pg 72.)